The trial regarding the argument as to whether or not "the world and everything in it is unplanned accident, existence is meaningless; the past is irrelevant; nothing matters" was composed of two sides each representing the two polar positions. I, who took on role of the Dragon, was part of Position 1, which sought to prove the nihilistic nature of the world, while Position 2 argued that life held meaning and purpose. Looking back on the case, Position 1 had more knowledgeable witnesses and skilled lawyers who inquired concise, questions relevant to the argument at issue. This is not to say, however, that the witnesses and lawyers of Position 2 were incompetent. The difference in argumentative proficiency was not separated by a large gap; instead, it was quite close. The deciding factor was in the crucial procedure of questioning the Dragon. Unfortunately, I went to the bathroom before the trial began and consequently missed the introduction of Position 1. Thus, because I have missed a valuable part of the trial that would have been of great consideration on my part, I will only take into account of Position 2's adeptness in inquiry of the Dragons.
The Dragons, including me, were the first to be questioned. Our initial questioning by our respective lawyer was quite weak; thus I tried to reply back with as much information supporting our side of the argument. When the allotted time for our side came to an end and the opposing position began to question us, i gradually came to realize that the lawyers of Position 2 were set on proving a single item--that life is meaningful--with a single point regarding the Dragon's greed for gold. Ashley stated that because the Dragon protected his gold and valued it above anything else--even threatening to kill Grendel over a petty incident--he thus had a purpose in life--purpose to protect the gold--and his existence was meaningful. I knew fundamentally what they were trying to prove, but the way in which they tackled the argument was obviously in a wrong direction. Just because some living creature imposes a value upon some mere object and savors or protects it, it does not mean--as said in the overarching statement in question--that "the world and everything in it is unplanned accident, existence is meaningless; the past is irrelevant, nothing matters." The truth lies the same as ever as when we state that existence is meaningless, it is an underlying notion. Anything can create its own little reason to as why they exist. Whether it be love or some other ridiculous justification, the meaning is set up artificially: that is, it breaks the connectedness of all things. To be frank, not even the Dragon is free of faults, for he too is still motivated to act according to his heart. Thus, it is not to say that the Dragon may create a little meaning to his life. However, the Dragon does understand about the purposelessness of existence as it is described that his eyes have "been dead for a thousand years." (Page 60, Lines 11-12) Eyes often symbolize of windows to the true nature of a person, or in this case, the Dragon, and the description proves the point that his actions do not portray his real frame of mind. Another fault in the arguments spoken by the lawyers of Position 2 was its irrelevancy. After the initial questioning regarding the meaning of the Dragon's life, the prosecutors commenced to point out an event where a thief stole one of the Dragon's golden treasures. They tried to disprove the authenticity of the Dragon's ability to look into the future, which was easily put down by the fact that as the Dragon foresees the future as inferior creatures, like Grendel, recall the past, some patches of information may be overlooked. Thus, not only did they not try to answer the rest of the questions, including the accidental coming of the world, irrelevance of the past, and the unimportance of anything, the prosecutors were unable to see the bigger, absolute perspective of what was being questioned.
Verdict
The trial regarding the argument as to whether or not "the world and everything in it is unplanned accident, existence is meaningless; the past is irrelevant; nothing matters" was composed of two sides each representing the two polar positions. I, who took on role of the Dragon, was part of Position 1, which sought to prove the nihilistic nature of the world, while Position 2 argued that life held meaning and purpose. Looking back on the case, Position 1 had more knowledgeable witnesses and skilled lawyers who inquired concise, questions relevant to the argument at issue. This is not to say, however, that the witnesses and lawyers of Position 2 were incompetent. The difference in argumentative proficiency was not separated by a large gap; instead, it was quite close. The deciding factor was in the crucial procedure of questioning the Dragon. Unfortunately, I went to the bathroom before the trial began and consequently missed the introduction of Position 1. Thus, because I have missed a valuable part of the trial that would have been of great consideration on my part, I will only take into account of Position 2's adeptness in inquiry of the Dragons.
The Dragons, including me, were the first to be questioned. Our initial questioning by our respective lawyer was quite weak; thus I tried to reply back with as much information supporting our side of the argument. When the allotted time for our side came to an end and the opposing position began to question us, i gradually came to realize that the lawyers of Position 2 were set on proving a single item--that life is meaningful--with a single point regarding the Dragon's greed for gold. Ashley stated that because the Dragon protected his gold and valued it above anything else--even threatening to kill Grendel over a petty incident--he thus had a purpose in life--purpose to protect the gold--and his existence was meaningful. I knew fundamentally what they were trying to prove, but the way in which they tackled the argument was obviously in a wrong direction. Just because some living creature imposes a value upon some mere object and savors or protects it, it does not mean--as said in the overarching statement in question--that "the world and everything in it is unplanned accident, existence is meaningless; the past is irrelevant, nothing matters." The truth lies the same as ever as when we state that existence is meaningless, it is an underlying notion. Anything can create its own little reason to as why they exist. Whether it be love or some other ridiculous justification, the meaning is set up artificially: that is, it breaks the connectedness of all things. To be frank, not even the Dragon is free of faults, for he too is still motivated to act according to his heart. Thus, it is not to say that the Dragon may create a little meaning to his life. However, the Dragon does understand about the purposelessness of existence as it is described that his eyes have "been dead for a thousand years." (Page 60, Lines 11-12) Eyes often symbolize of windows to the true nature of a person, or in this case, the Dragon, and the description proves the point that his actions do not portray his real frame of mind. Another fault in the arguments spoken by the lawyers of Position 2 was its irrelevancy. After the initial questioning regarding the meaning of the Dragon's life, the prosecutors commenced to point out an event where a thief stole one of the Dragon's golden treasures. They tried to disprove the authenticity of the Dragon's ability to look into the future, which was easily put down by the fact that as the Dragon foresees the future as inferior creatures, like Grendel, recall the past, some patches of information may be overlooked. Thus, not only did they not try to answer the rest of the questions, including the accidental coming of the world, irrelevance of the past, and the unimportance of anything, the prosecutors were unable to see the bigger, absolute perspective of what was being questioned.